Analysis of Negotiating About Pandas For the San Diego Zoo Case

In the Negotiating About Pandas For the San Diego Zoo case, Douglas Myers, the zoo’s executive director, is involved an exceedingly difficult negotiation process to procure the long-term loan of two giant pandas from China. Although the zoo has previously loaned two giant pandas for a brief six-month stay in 1987, ongoing negotiations have introduced several new challenges that further complicate discussions. A number of factors, such as the duration of the negotiations, the vast number of involved parties/stakeholders (national governments, conservation groups, etc.) and the cross-cultural setting, are only a few of the complications that Myers encounters along the way of his eventually successful negotiations with Chinese officials.

It is due to these challenges and complications that Myers’ negotiations present invaluable lessons that are applicable in other scenarios. In this case, Myers demonstrates the criticality of preparing for negotiations, especially when dealing with parties with dissimilar culture or from a different country. Discussions with the Chinese also validate the importance of building personal connections with those across the negotiating table. Lastly, Myers skillfully exhibits how to turn a negotiation that had the potential to be distributive into an integrative one, leading to both parties being satisfied.

Negotiating About Pandas For the San Diego Zoo: Analysis

Throughout the Panda case, the actions taken by Douglas Myers highlights the importance of preparation in negotiations. Myers wanted to bring pandas back to the San Diego Zoo as he saw an increase of zoo visitors and revenues during the few months the pandas were loaned to the zoo. Myers desired a long-term transaction between the zoo and the China Wildlife Conservation Association (CWCA); one that would retain the pandas to the San Diego Zoo permanently or an extended period of time. Myers developed a framework structured around identifying agenda items for negotiation and creating a communication strategy that includes important talking points. By understanding the cultural effects on negotiations, Myers was able to focus on the big picture and pursue a relationship-oriented discussion with his Chinese counterparts. Myers’ knowledge of the Chinese culture enabled him helped not only to pick up on social and cultural cues but also prepared him for an extended negotiation process. Myers recognized early on that the Chinese officials had a strong BATNA and would be reluctant to enter into a long-term contract until their needs were met. Myers also understood the importance of how differences in culture can create misunderstandings in communication. This is demonstrated by how carefully Myers framed his responses to the highly impractical demands made by the Chinese officials. Myers also does a good job of recognizing his different sources of bargaining power and his BATNA. He leveraged this information to develop different types of relationships with the Chinese negotiators. The case highlights the constantly decreasing panda population as a core issue for the CWCA officials. By crafting a response that highlights the benefits of having the Pandas back at the San Diego Zoo, Myers showcased credibility and developed trust with his counterparts. Despite hesitation from several US animal conversation groups and government, Myers considered about how he can utilize monetary compensation or awards as concessions during the negotiation process. See Exhibit 1 for further preparation questions.

The Panda case also illustrates the importance of how negotiations are advanced by building personal connections and allowing others to save face to maximize influence during the negotiation and obtain better outcomes. Myers focused on building relationships with the Chinese officials through destination-focused meetings, and meetings that involved key scientists and researchers. He used these events to build rapport and seek mutually beneficial outcomes. In doing so, he sought to cultivate trust which would frame the negotiation process, characterize the process in a positive way and allow time to identify all pertinent parties with the hope of making the negotiations more aspirational in nature to appeal to all needs, not just the final outcome. Myers does this for all parties involved in the negotiation to win over each group and effectuate aspirational outcomes. This is important so that the proposals made are viewed in a positive light and not misconstrued whereby others would assume Myers was only trying to satisfy his own interests.

Additionally, Myers does a good job of allowing Chinese officials to save face when their demands seemed unreasonable. He worked to stress achievements in breeding, research, and other issues and averted the financial and other demands of the Chinese to derail the process. By allowing the various Chinese groups to save face, he allowed the negotiation to continue despite the many contextual political disruptions. Myers’ diligence in framing the negotiations with each group, building rapport and consensus on broad issues, enables him to achieve mutual goals over time, and satisfy many negotiating parties to achieve the Panda diplomacy loan to his zoo as well as further research and facilitate future negotiations amongst all parties.

Lastly, this case proved to be a great example of how to convert a distributive environment into an integrative outcome. When reading through Part A, it may seem as though the negotiation was going to turn in to a distributive one. Myers understood that his bargaining position was relatively weak. China was the only source for getting pandas, there were several other countries and zoos that were trying to get pandas, and the population of pandas had been declining and they were an endangered specifies. Because of these challenges, Myers and his team had to find a way to create a “win-win” situation and make the negotiations integrative.

Conclusion

Throughout the process, Myers used a few different integrative tactics that ultimately led to a successful negotiation. First, he created a free flow of information. Myers was upfront and honest with the Chinese about his intentions. Myers stayed on the negotiation for over 10 years to see it through, so he was very familiar with all of the information that had been shared between both parties, as well as between the other stakeholders involved (FWS, WWF, and AAZPA). Myers cognizance of the culture helps him realize that the Chinese valued “friendship” in negotiations and that withholding information and causing distrust would not help his case in pursuing a friendship with the Chinese. It was easy to see Myers was motivated and committed to working together to find a common solution, which helped the teams to work cooperatively.

Additionally, Myers was able to surface the needs and understand what the Chinese were looking for, which ultimately helped him in his proposals. He knew the Chinese were heavily interested in the amount of money they would receive from providing the pandas to the zoo. Myers also understood the Chinese had difficulty setting up breeding programs and would be interested in a partner that had the resources to meet those needs and interests.

Lastly, Myers and his team did a great job in searching for solutions that satisfied the needs and objectives of all parties. Despite its weaker position, the San Diego Zoo was a renowned establishment with a great track record of 1) past experience with taking in pandas; 2) its mission to “conserve, educate, and dedication to reproduction and protection of animals; and 3) strength in obtaining resources. Myers was persistent in his submissions and looked for alternative ways to achieve favorable outcomes; when one submission was rejected for a specific reason, he brought in other experts to back his submissions, displaying both flexibility and tenacity while that his Chinese counterparts would be more willing to would align to.

References

1. Essentials of Negotiation Roy Lewicki-David Saunders-Kevin Tasa-Bruce Barry - Mcgraw-Hill Ryerson – 2017
2. Weiss, S., & Tatrallyay, S. (n.d.). Negotiating About Pandas For San Diego Zoo Part A: Myer's Initial Plans. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
3. Weiss, S., & Tatrallyay, S. (n.d.). Negotiating About Pandas For San Diego Zoo Part B: Responding to Chinese Demands and the Changing Environment. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
4. Weiss, S., & Tatrallyay, S. (n.d.). Negotiating About Pandas For San Diego Zoo Part C: Agreements and Aftermaths. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
5. Bloch, J. I., Boyer, D. M., & Godinot, M. (2005). Biogeography and adaptation of the Miocene hominoid Kenyapithecus to changing environments. Nature, 433(7023), 395-398.
6. Chapman, C. A., & Peres, C. A. (2001). Primate conservation in the new millennium: the role of scientists. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 10(1), 16-33.
7. Ewer, R. F. (1973). The Carnivores. Cornell University Press.
8. Gittleman, J. L., & Harvey, P. H. (Eds.). (1982). Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Springer Science & Business Media.